Introduction

We atheists are often accused of having a religion of our own — science. Sometimes we are accused of having "faith in science", the same way theists have faith in their gods.

This website is not a science site and it is not intended to address the evolution vs. creation debate. There are plenty of other websites that have dedicated themselves to that cause, and if you want detailed information, you should look to them for answers.

What we do want to cover here, however, is a simple understanding of how atheists view science in general, and why adhering to the scientific method does not constitute a religion or faith in any meaningful sense of the word.

My Faith in Science

Ok I admit it: I do have faith in science. However, my faith stems from a very different source than true religious faith. My faith is rooted in the scientific method, which brings with it other concepts such as evidence, demonstrability, testability, repeatability, and so forth. Let me explain.

I know from experience that if I wanted to gain a deeper understanding about a particular scientific topic, I have many options available to me. There is no requirement that I "just have faith" the way it is required in religion. If there is something that really doesn't make sense to me, or that I can't imagine how it can possibly be true, there are books that I can read, evidence that I can look at, tests that I can replicate, etc. I have the option of doing the research for myself so that I don't need faith.

The Lighter Experiment

Here is a simple example. Imagine that you had never seen a cigarette lighter before. Someone shows you one for the first time, and tells you that when the button is pressed, a flame will shoot out of the top. If you choose, you can take this person's word for it, and accept it on faith that the lighter will perform as he described. However, you also have the option to perform a simple scientific experiment: take the lighter and press the button for yourself. It can be objectively demonstrated that his claim is true. It can be tested, and it is repeatable. And the claim could have easily been proven false.

This is how science works. Furthermore, if I wanted to gain a deeper understanding of how the lighter works, I could take it apart, study the mechanisms, learn about the chemical properties of the fuel, etc. I don't have to assume that its behavior is supernatural. Though faith is an option, there is absolutely nothing about it that requires faith.

By contrast, religious faith is blind faith. In religion, there are many things for which you are required to have faith, because there is no objective evidence to look at, no valid tests you can perform, nothing you can study for yourself under a microscope, and no claims that can be easily falsified. In fact, religious beliefs often require you to have faith because there is objective evidence that directly contradicts the belief.

Science has never required me to just have faith. Science does not require faith at all, as long as you are willing to spend the time studying it. But scientific knowledge comes with a price: you must be willing to invest time and effort in it.

Everyone Has Faith in Science

Why do atheists have faith in science? For the same reason that most theists have faith in science: Because science comes through with proven solutions, time and again.

Scientists have given us airplanes that weigh hundreds of tons and travel hundreds of miles per hour. Every time I get on an airplane, I have faith that it is going to fulfill the purpose for which it was made. I understand very little about how airplanes work, but I have no reason to suspect there is anything supernatural about it. For the parts that I don't understand, I don't fill in the gaps in my knowledge by saying, "Well it must be God!" I recognize that this would be silly.

What about the biological sciences? These are the same scientists who regularly discover both the causes of and the cures for diseases. I take the medications given to me by physicians because they have been scientifically proven to work. I submit to beneficial surgeries and medical procedures created by scientists who possess a deep understanding of the human body. I have faith that these things will work, because the scientific method has proven to be a reliable way of gaining knowledge.

Faith in Evolution

And then there is Darwin's theory of evolution. It is true that I don't know or understand every last thing about evolutionary theory. After all, I am not an evolutionary biologist, a biochemist, a geophysicist, or a molecular geneticist. Yet I still have a well-founded belief that it is true. Again, this is not blind faith in the way theists (or in this case, creationists) practice it. I have studied the basic principles and fundamental concepts of evolutionary theory. It all makes sense, it is all supported by evidence. There are countless experiments that have been done demonstrating it. And there is information, which if brought to light, could prove the entire thing false. Despite the best efforts of religious fundamentalists, no such information has yet come to light.

Occasionally a theist raises a question on evolution to which I don't know the answer. If I think it is a good question, I start to dig deeper on that specific area. And each time, I have found that there is a great deal more detail that explains the question — and it continues to make sense, and it is supported by evidence. I don't have to accept it on faith.

Studying Science and Religion

And any scientist who embarks on a new area of study must be prepared for his idea to be proven wrong. A scientist may formulate a hypothesis about how something functions, and he sets out — he hopes — to prove that hypothesis. But if in the course of his research he encounters something that contradicts the hypothesis, he has no choice but to either abandon or alter his initial premise.

This again runs counter to the concept of religious faith. For example, a religious person has a pre-defined concept of God in his mind — perhaps that God is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing. If there is any evidence that contradicts (or even seems to contradict) this notion, the notion is not altered or cast aside. Instead, the religionist assumes the mistake is on his part. Maybe there is something he is not understanding, or the evidence is mistaken, or there is a flaw in the way he is looking at it, or his interpretation is false, or… . He will make 1001 excuses for the apparent contradiction, but under no circumstance will he alter the initial premise. In the end, if he cannot reconcile it in his mind, he simply chooses to "accept on faith" that the initial premise was correct.

As science requires no faith at all, it hardly qualifies as a religion. There are no supernatural entities that require worship or threaten eternal punishment.

Denying Science

You certainly have the ability to deny that a particular scientific topic can't be true. But if your entire defense is based on your lack of understanding of that topic, are your actions reasonable? If you don't understand how television transmissions travel invisibly through the air and wind up as pictures on your TV, is it then reasonable for you to assume that it is magic? If you are given a medication that works at the cellular level to cure a specific disease, but you don't understand the biology behind it, does that give you the right to claim that it must be the work of a god — or of a devil?

If you don't understand the theory of gravity, and you wonder why objects fall to the ground on earth but in outer space they float, is it reasonable to assume a supernatural explanation?

Of course not. In each case it is more reasonable to admit that there is simply a gap in your knowledge, and that a natural explanation exists which you simply don't understand.